- cross-posted to:
- livemedia@thelemmy.club
- cross-posted to:
- livemedia@thelemmy.club
Ryan Girdusky clashed with British-American journalist Mehdi Hasan on Monday night.
CNN has banned a conservative commentator from appearing on the network again after he told a Muslim journalist “I hope your beeper doesn’t go off,” an apparent reference to the spate of exploding pagers in Lebanon that killed members of the Hezbollah militant group last month.
Ryan Girdusky made the comment during a heated debate with Mehdi Hasan, a prominent British-American broadcaster and an outspoken critic of Israel’s war in Gaza, on “CNN Newsnight” with host Abby Phillip.
The guests were discussing the racist jokes made by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, which overshadowed former President Donald Trump’s rally at New York’s Madison Square Garden on Sunday and continue to make headlines two days later.
As the debate turned fractious, Girdusky and Hasan sparred over whether the latter had been labeled an anti-Semite. “I’m a supporter of the Palestinians, I’m used to it,” Hasan said.
Girdusky replied: “Well I hope your beeper doesn’t go off.”
Yeah no, the exploding pagers and radios, which were from an intercepted supply specifically for Hezbollah, was far more targeted than anyone could reasonably ask for.
Like yes, Israel’s overall actions in Gaza and Lebanon have been horribly ruthless and against civilian well-being. And there is the broader context of Palestine. But this is what you’re outraged by?
If everything between bombing Hezbollah and targeted attacks like the pagers/radio are off the table, like what would you actually do if a non-governmental military was indiscriminately firing hundreds of rockets into your cities for an entire year? Seriously, how would you actually respond if you were in the leadership position?
Idk dude, generally things like booby traps are considered illegal in part because they’re not selective. Like if someone breaks in and you kill them with a gun it’s self defense, but if it’s a booby trap then we view it differently. Disguising bombs as typical civilian items seems pretty messed up.
Did you forget that
every “responsible” western power(Edit: Ottawa treaty) the US and Ukraine (who was a signatory of the Ottawa treaty) also has an arsenal of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines which are specifically meant to be hidden and disguised? Quite literally booby traps with long-lasting risks for civilian lives. Many children have lost their lives due to mines, yet they are still deemed acceptable in war.Anything that risks civilian lives is pretty messed up. But even compared to the mines being used in Ukraine, the pagers/radios were far more targeted and posed less risk to civilians.
This is not true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
Oh snap, that’s awesome! I wasn’t aware of this. I assumed NATO would be consistent with the US on mines. Thank you for sharing this.
I’ll modify my argument to “Even the US and Ukraine use mines”
It’s interesting though, according to my research the distinction between mines and weapons lie in how it’s activated. For example, the C19 ex-Claymore is now remote detonation only to comply with the Ottawa treaty because it can only be activated remotely and cannot be used with an indiscriminate activator like a tripwire. Therefore it is a weapon. With this les, the pagers/radios are more akin to weapons rather than mines.
So booby traps are allowed, as long as someone is there to decide when to press the button, which the Israelies clearly did.
No, I didn’t forget. Someone even mentioned them in this same comment chain.
Okay, so let’s go with your position that attacking soldiers with explosive weapons in civilian areas are not justifiable.
Based on your beliefs, what do you see as a justifiable response to Hezbollah’s year long barrage of rockets and missiles into Israeli cities. Keep in mind Hezbollah by and large conducts these strikes directly embedded in or right beside civilian sites. And they also store weapons in civilian sites.
The goal now is not to say which is worse, there’s plenty of blame to go around. The goal is to understand how you think about conflict and the principles you believe in that shape your views.
This was never a debate, I was just saying that I feel like disguising bombs as everyday, civilian objects is bad. The comment where I even posted that I literally began with “idk dude” to make it clear I wasn’t trying to engage in debate about this topic. The only reason I even replied again was because land mines were mentioned in the context of “did you forget” when literally above in this comment chain land mines were already mentioned.
Removed by mod
No dude, it’s pretty reasonable for me to ask that they don’t kill children with IEDs.
Serious question, would you condone assassinating Putin with an IED even if several children were killed? Would it be better if they used a missile strike with 5x the civilian casualties because at least it isn’t an IED? Would it be better to do nothing and allow an opposing military force to continue bombarding your cities and your children with rockets and missiles?
I abhore the mass bombings and utter destruction Israel has wrought over the last year. It is beyond the pale. I would genuinely have prefered it if they could’ve taken out all of Hamas by blowing up cell phones in their pockets instead.
There’s no risk of Putin being at a random grocery store or hospital so your hypothetical doesn’t tea make sense.
That doesn’t answer the question. Let me rephrase to be more direct.
What do you believe makes for acceptable and unacceptable civilian casualties (e.g. children) in urban warfare and what principles do you draw on to form these beliefs? Please use an example from a side you feel are “the good guys”.
If you’re a pacifist or believe not a single civilian casualty is acceptable, what would your approach be to resolving a conflict where your civilian population is being attacked with rockets/missiles?
According to international law it’s acceptable when you’re being occupied, as is the case with Palestine. Not saying I agree, but the law makes a big distinction for those under apartheid.
Removed by mod
I mean it was wrong when the US bombed weddings in the middle east and was a bad look. Don’t even need hypotheticals.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod